Upgrade costs
- Thread starter xau99
- Start date
DaviddesJ
Deity
xau99 said:
No, there isn't. Leonardo's Workshop was very exploitable in Civ3 (disconnect resources to build lots of cheap units, then reconnect and mass-upgrade). In Civ4, upgrades cost more and they aren't discountable. But, the promotions system of Civ4 means that it's still very worthwhile to upgrade your high-level units.
winddbourne
Prince
Whether it's high depends on how much experience your building into your troops to begin with, and how much they have earned since then. If your just upgrading standard units from your barracks, maybe it's pricy, best to find a city with a barracks and build a new unit. But if you have a unit with five promotions sitting there . . . that's a totally different ballgame.
Maybe the disagreement here comes because the cost doesn't do well at taking into account how many upgrades a unit has on it? Upgrading a warrior with one upgrade (or even no upgrades) to an axeman shouldn't cost nearly as much as upgrading one that has "City Raider IV"
Maybe the disagreement here comes because the cost doesn't do well at taking into account how many upgrades a unit has on it? Upgrading a warrior with one upgrade (or even no upgrades) to an axeman shouldn't cost nearly as much as upgrading one that has "City Raider IV"
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Upgrade costs are starting at a threshold of 20 plus 3 gold per hammer.
So, if you upgrade a unit of 60 hammers to one of 90 hammers, you will have to spend 110 gold. No promotions are taken into account.
So, if you upgrade a unit of 60 hammers to one of 90 hammers, you will have to spend 110 gold. No promotions are taken into account.
![Impaler[WrG]](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/73/73222.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
Impaler[WrG]
Civ4:Col UI programmer
Its that base threashold thats the problem, it makes even the earliest upgrades cost around 100 gold, a huge sum that early in the game. Late game cost become much more reasonable because that 20 is comparitivly less of the whole.
What I just discovered, which was a seriously unpleasant shock, is that when you upgrade you lose all your accumulated XP points, or at least go down to about 10. I had a Cav at 60/65 XP, upgraded it to a gunship, and it now has 10/65 - I still have all my promotions, but I've got a very long way to go before I can get another promotion for it!
Lanthar
SPQR
I like the current system also...and like that xp over 10 is stripped when upgrading. After all, the upgraded units just got trained with their new equipment, it's reasonable to think that they would take awhile to get back to their old experience level. It makes things more interesting...and a half priced upgrade wonder in CIV would probably give the CIV with that wonder a huge, unbalanced advantage over everyone else!
I like it how it is now.
In previous games raising enough money to upgrade always seemed like a nessesary and boring chore. In this one, you're forced to build new units, and work out what to do with the obsolete ones.
Upgrade them? Use them as city defenders? Use them as suicide troops to prevent casualties to your main force? Build a stack-o-crap to distract the enemy with? Theres loads of cool tactics I've worked out to incorporate the obsolete guys.
In previous games raising enough money to upgrade always seemed like a nessesary and boring chore. In this one, you're forced to build new units, and work out what to do with the obsolete ones.
Upgrade them? Use them as city defenders? Use them as suicide troops to prevent casualties to your main force? Build a stack-o-crap to distract the enemy with? Theres loads of cool tactics I've worked out to incorporate the obsolete guys.
Pantastic
King
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 922
Lanthar said:
Only in MP games; in SP the AI players all get a huge discount on upgrades. That's why you often see an AI civ immediately upgrade every unit when it gets a new tech, and why it can be useful to sell something to an AI right before you attack him.
I like the upgrade system pretty well, it's painfully expensive compared to older versions but still affordable, and if you save up money you can do some really devastating stuff.
winddbourne
Prince
Commander Bello said:
I wasn't sure exactly how the system worked, thank you. Given that, I think the problem is clear. Upgrading an untrained warrior to an untrained axeman may be worth 30 gold, upgrading a warrior with city raider 5 however . . . that would be worth closer to 250 or even 300 gold. As it stands the game doesn't care. Both upgrades are just "A warrior to an axeman".
Which means you get royally ripped off if you want to keep all your pre-built units upgraded to some median level, but get an average (or even good) deal if all you want to do is "save the experience" from your elite units.
DaviddesJ
Deity
winddbourne said:
The cost is what it is. If you play stupidly, without regard to the cost, then you aren't "getting ripped off". You're just being dumb.
winddbourne
Prince
All I'm saying is that the current system isn't optimal, no need to call anyone stupid. The way things are now playing for a "median" strategy IS stupid, and that's what I disagree with.
I think that a better system would allow some players to to have regular units upgraded to their maximum tech level for the same cost that other players spend to upgrade all their elite units. That kind of system provides two "smart" ways to play, rather than one smart way and one stupid way. It is more versatile and allows more valid strategies. Thus you have more play-styles and a more exciting game.
One player spams out cheap cavalry, the other sends out a few highly experienced units. With intelligent balance the two styles provide about equivalent power. And if you wanted to upgrade one good unit, and four cheap ones, that would be a valid strategy too. It just makes sense.
In the current game, of course, I never go for a median strategy. LOL
I think that a better system would allow some players to to have regular units upgraded to their maximum tech level for the same cost that other players spend to upgrade all their elite units. That kind of system provides two "smart" ways to play, rather than one smart way and one stupid way. It is more versatile and allows more valid strategies. Thus you have more play-styles and a more exciting game.
One player spams out cheap cavalry, the other sends out a few highly experienced units. With intelligent balance the two styles provide about equivalent power. And if you wanted to upgrade one good unit, and four cheap ones, that would be a valid strategy too. It just makes sense.
In the current game, of course, I never go for a median strategy. LOL
DaviddesJ
Deity
winddbourne said:
I don't know what you mean by "optimal". I think I prefer the current system, where upgrades have the same cost for all units, to an alternative that would charge more for upgrades to more experienced units. The system provides a good reason to invest in experienced units early on, and to preserve them. Someone else might like your alternative better, but, since different people have different tastes, I don't think any one alternative is "optimal".
Esox
In Search of Inspirado
jimbob27 said:
Thanks for a good laugh. I've run plenty of "SOCs" behind enemy lines, but I've never seen anyone coin a term for it.On topic, I wouldn't think it appropriate to pay a higher cost to upgrade an experienced unit. It would defeat some of the value of those units. Under the current system, the player has more choices to make, like whether to upgrade, go suicide, or just run decoy in a pathetic-yet-strategic SOC.
winddbourne
Prince
In my oppinion, and feel free to disagree, there are already a ton of bonus' to gaining experience, and huge benefits from keeping those units around. A highly upgraded unit is several times better than the standard unit it is based off from.
Take an axeman for example. Your standard axeman, strength 6 +50% against melee units. Now add 25% again for shock, and you get an effective strength of 10.5 against melee units, add cover as well and your unit is 7.5 against archers, who being a strength 3 unit are probably toast. You get two more promotions and give him combat I and combat II. Suddenly he's doing 11.7 against melee units, and 8.7 against archers.
Now upgrade him to a maceman. Strength 8 +50% against melee units. Suddenly THAT unit is doing 15.6 against melee units, and 11.6 against archers. Not bad. But he is a highly upgraded unit.
Using an unupgraded unit you are upgrading the following stats:
6 (9 vs melee) to an 8 (11 vs melee)
and you think it should cost the same as upgrading a
7.2 (11.7 vs melee, 8.7 vs archers) to a 9.6(15.6 vs melee, 11.6 vs archers)
In my opinion that makes no sense at all. One of those units is extremely powerful, and since you can't simply build it you need to protect and upgrade it whenever possible at all costs. The other unit . . . well you can churn them out and if you keep them upgraded they might make good cannon fodder . . . if you can keep them upgraded cheap. A SOC full of warriors isn't even worth throwing at a city defended by longbowmen. They won't even feel it. Normal axemen would probably fare about the same though they might weaken it by a point or two, if the SOC was big enough, and the dice rolled in your favor.
Take an axeman for example. Your standard axeman, strength 6 +50% against melee units. Now add 25% again for shock, and you get an effective strength of 10.5 against melee units, add cover as well and your unit is 7.5 against archers, who being a strength 3 unit are probably toast. You get two more promotions and give him combat I and combat II. Suddenly he's doing 11.7 against melee units, and 8.7 against archers.
Now upgrade him to a maceman. Strength 8 +50% against melee units. Suddenly THAT unit is doing 15.6 against melee units, and 11.6 against archers. Not bad. But he is a highly upgraded unit.
Using an unupgraded unit you are upgrading the following stats:
6 (9 vs melee) to an 8 (11 vs melee)
and you think it should cost the same as upgrading a
7.2 (11.7 vs melee, 8.7 vs archers) to a 9.6(15.6 vs melee, 11.6 vs archers)
In my opinion that makes no sense at all. One of those units is extremely powerful, and since you can't simply build it you need to protect and upgrade it whenever possible at all costs. The other unit . . . well you can churn them out and if you keep them upgraded they might make good cannon fodder . . . if you can keep them upgraded cheap. A SOC full of warriors isn't even worth throwing at a city defended by longbowmen. They won't even feel it. Normal axemen would probably fare about the same though they might weaken it by a point or two, if the SOC was big enough, and the dice rolled in your favor.
